Crespo v. Franco
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-07345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Crespo v. Franco, Judge Figueredo extended discovery, set production deadlines, and overruled objections to two interrogatories.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, particularly the parties involved in the specified document requests and interrogatories.
What happened
In Crespo v. Franco, the court extended the deadline for completing discovery to May 16, 2025, after a March 11 conference.
The court set deadlines for the parties’ discovery responses. Plaintiffs must submit supporting authority for requests concerning RFP 2, Requests 13 and 17, and defendants must respond to those requests and to other outstanding requests by specified dates.
Judge Figueredo overruled defendants’ objections to Interrogatories 9 and 16 based on the 25-interrogatory limit and ordered responses by April 11, 2025.
The detailed version
- Crespo v. Franco · No. 1:22-cv-07345
- P. Castel
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
The order followed a March 11, 2025 conference in a case involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants. It addressed the schedule for completing discovery and several of plaintiffs’ requests for production, or requests for documents.
Discovery Deadlines
The court extended the parties’ deadline to complete discovery to May 16,
- Plaintiffs were directed to submit a letter supporting their requests for an order requiring defendants to respond to RFP 2, Requests 13 and 17, with supplemental legal authority by April 2,
- Defendants were directed to respond by April 10,
- Defendants were also directed to respond to plaintiffs’ other outstanding requests for production and provide destruction records for unavailable documents by April 11, 2025.
Interrogatory Objections
Defendants objected to Interrogatories 9 and 16 on the ground that they exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. The court overruled those objections. It explained that courts in the circuit have allowed 25 interrogatories for each sufficiently separate party, rather than 25 for all parties on one side, and found that the plaintiffs were more than nominally separate because their claims arose from distinct criminal cases. The court also noted that each part of Interrogatory 9 sought documents distinct to each plaintiff.
Disposition
The court ordered defendants to respond to Interrogatories 9 and 16 by April 11, 2025, and otherwise issued the discovery deadlines described above. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.